Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Febod

  • Birthday 06/17/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Vail, CO

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Ohio State
  • Occupation

Febod's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. I've always been bad with achieving goals, your quintessential slacker. But Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill really helped me out. Some of his stuff is whacky (he discusses clairvoyance, for instance) but his words on constructing a "definite major purpose" for life really helped me focus on what I really wanted to do, which is what i was missing all along.
  2. It's not your "fault." I don't think anyone here is to blame. People misinterpret social cues all the time, and like I said, dating can be risky. No one wants to end up in a relationship with someone they deem unworthy. There will be risks regardless, but it's smart to minimize those risks as much as possible. Yes, that's why I used the qualifier "probably." No. Flat-out indifferent behavior isn't attractive. However, this doesn't mean that it's healthy to let all your feelings out at a drop of a hat. It's possible to show someone that you're interested without being clingy. People, in general, like it when other people like them, but not when people are clingy because it's a sign of insecurity. Insecure people are a psychological drain, and so are very unattractive. "Showing interest" and "acting clingy" need to be kept separate in such a discussion.
  3. I think it's important to keep context in mind when discussing these things. When you first meet someone, if that someone is all over you like a hot rash, then it's perfectly reasonable to become disgusted with them. Sure, you may really like yourself, and you may think you have a lot of good qualities to offer a romantic partner, but there's no reason to believe that this other person would know that about you. Their longing for you is probably just do to looks, or some form of projection. Either way, your best bet is to assume that they like you for some superficial or irrational reason, and to steer clear of them as much as possible. After all, dating can be risky business, and so we all make snap judgments about potential mates to save time. However, after a relationship progresses, and the other person becomes more aware of your values, your good points, and can relate to them, then yes, a rational person of self-esteem wouldn't become disinterested if their partner showed interest, be it with words, gifts, attention, etc. This is, in fact where needy, insecure people become scared and run off.
  4. Just as an interesting sidenote, I heard Richard Dawkins on Penn Jillette's radio show discuss the stereotypical view of an atheist being an amoral social pariah who would step over anybody to get what he wants. (think Mr. Burns from the Simpsons) Dawkins then cited a study where students were given the opportunity to cheat on a test and not get caught, and it turns out the atheists in the classroom turned down the bait more than the christians, jews, and other religious adherents. btw, if you think cheating, no matter how innocent it may seem, is okay, then you need to re-evaluate the hierarchy of values you have chosen for yourself, or accepted blindly.
  5. Okay, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just didn't understand my previous posts... anyway, i think this is an important topic. No, i'm am not implying any sort of irrationality on the part of Rand. Marty raised some suggestions against her sense of life (her view of 'the masses') and i so i aimed to dismiss them, via her moods, but nothing consequential, and nothing that should make a difference in how we view Rand as a person. If marty sensed any irrationality from Rand toward the masses, then it was his fault, not Rands. My aim was to dismiss his objections as superfluous. I disagree. And I will refer you to Ayn Rand Laughed in theThe Intellectual Activist, January 20002. I don't feel like fishing for a quote right now, but if you don't have an issue on you, i'd be happy to provide you with evidence for my position (from Rand).
  6. Steve Martin's Roxanne is an adaptation of Cyrano. I think it's extremely well-done, but what has Steve Martin done that wasn't?
  7. Your view of life, be it the malevolent or benevolent universe premise, or some degree in between, affects everthing about the universe, hence the word universe in their names. This includes the masses, the majority, or whatever name you give to that group of people with which you do not associate. Rand states, when discussing innocent victims of war, that the people are responsible for the actions of their government: "... if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness [the majority] couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours." Ayn Rand Answers, pg 94 So when the government declines, Rand does not simply point a finger at college professors, politicians, and pastors. As for the rest of your post, i will disregard it since you have obviously disregarded mine.
  8. I think this is the confusion: You are correct to say that in her novels, she does not give one hint of any such negativity, but I am not referring to her novels (and i'm not sure if marty was, that wasn't clear). I am referring to Rand as the person who, at times, did project a more malevolent sense of life, which would consequently influence her view of the masses. She openly admits this, and credits frank o'connor for raising her spirits: "I always told [Frank] I could not have written without him. He denied it; he thought I would have broken through. Perhaps the only tribute I can pay him with my readers is to say that I know it is impossible to hold a benevolent universe view consistently, as I had to hold it to write what I've written, when the world around us was getting worse and going in the direction of Ellsworth Toohey... [Frank] gave me the benevolent universe i know about." Ayn Rand Answers pg. 231 This, along with the quotation from Bernstein's lecture, exposes the Rand within.
  9. I'm curious, do you both find my statement irritable because i was making an unsubstantiated claim? Becuase really, if we were to cite all of our harmless, interpretive claims, it'd be a huge headache. Or is it because I suggested that Rand had moods, which may imply she wasn't rational, which would be an attack on her character? And did you even read my latest post on this thread? And don't worry, if you don't want to answer, that's fine. I come to this forum to relax, not demand satisfaction.
  10. True, nearly every modern philosopher is dry as hell and carries absolutely no charisma, and so of course they can't convey ideas well. Ever seen Chomsky speak? It's pure torture, as if his ideas weren't bad enough. I saw a marxist professor from Harvard on Charlie Rose, and he literally acted like a little boy trapped in a man's body. i'm surprised he didn't start picking his nose and crying for mommy... just pathetic. I've never seen Peikoff speak, though he sounds as if he can really command a room.
  11. Seriously? Is this a joke? Marty disliked the fact that Rand considered the masses, "Stupid and easy to sway." To say that Rand really thought this all the time would be to imply that she held a malevolent universe premise, which of course is not true. One character in her novels that held such a premise was Dominique. And Rand said, "Dominique is me on a bad day (or in a bad mood)." (taken from bernstein's lecture on Neitzsche, in which he references that quotation two or three times) I cannot find my copy of Ayn Rand Answers, but when I do i'll be sure to quote different examples on where she fluctuates on this topic.
  12. Not her writing. Refer to Ayn Rand Answeres: The Best of Her Q & A to see what i'm talking about.
  13. Maybe her husband's death had been weighing her down, but it wouldn't be noticeable on national television. She would have forgotten her misery, at least for a few moments, sharing her philosophy under the bright lights. If not, then maybe I don't understand love. Body language is universal. You can tell if someone is confident by the way they conduct themselves, regardless of where they're from. Also, if Rand wasn't nervous, or on edge, then she wouldn't have become stilted and upset when that woman implied objectivism was a cult. To quote Dagny: "We never had to take any of it seriously." Rand showed she wasn't at ease by taking something seriously that wasn't. She didn't take it seriously with her words, but rather with how she acted. Think about it. Have you ever made a point, or held a position in a discussion that you knew was unassailable, then someone interjected with a criticism that was either unimportant or of no relevance? What do you do? You don't get mad, you don't become stilted or self-conscious. You laugh. You are able to recognize the insignificance of that person's remarks. And age has nothing to do with it. Some of the most confident people I've seen have been elderly.
  14. Rand goes back and forth on this issue. Sometimes she looks upon the common person with respect, and sometimes she carries a more negative view of mankind. Her sentiments probably just fluctuated with her moods, as i'm sure we can all relate.
  15. I woudn't say that Rand displayed a 'terrible temper,' but she was a bit on edge. Nothing terrible, but when that woman implied that she ran a cult, the best thing Rand could have done would have been to laugh at her. As it happened, Rand's words expressed one thing, and her voice tone and body language expressed something totally different, as if what that woman had to say actually mattered. Also, if I read the posts on this thread and had not seen the inteview, I would have believed Rand to be flawless as a television personality. This just wasn't the case. She was quite nervous, though nothing detrimental to her performance. Her posture was tight, she looked down every so often, and her voice seemed to quiver. Rand was a great thinker, but a great personality she was not.
  • Create New...